I am ecstatic that Netflix is coming to the Wii. This is the closest I've gotten to my perfect setup, but it's still missing something: viz., Hulu, YouTube, NBC.com, ABC.com, Fox.com, and CBS.com. In the long run, I think the Apple TV is the best bet but Apple still hasn't put any serious effort into it.
Recently in Technology Category
I have to agree with Dare Obasanjo's latest blog entry about in-memory caching. After working on high-transaction, heavy database-using Web applications for the last nine years, there is one thing above all else that I have learned and taken to heart: a Web application is only as good as its caching strategy. My career has seen a progression from light to heavy cache usage and each new application has benefitted in scalability from that.
Dare's entry got me thinking: why couldn't the RDBMS itself incorporate a distributed, in-memory cache like memcached or Project Velocity? What if a Web application could basically eliminate the need for its own caching layer by relying solely on the database, which would then aggressively and algorithmically use one of the caching services to expand its memory-based caching?
If the problem with query caching in MySQL or SQL Server is the amount of server RAM that can be installed, then distributed caching seems like the perfect solution. It's what the Web server layer uses: why not bring it down to the data layer. Moreover, given the common replication and clustering scenarios, there are likely idle database servers whose memory is already going unused for the most part. Putting a distributed caching system in place would put them in action while still keeping them ready for failovers.
The main objections I can see is that going to the database might cause an increase in network usage since some cache calls in the Web server layer would never leave the server and that the database would have to work to decide between file-level and cache-level access. But that would be minimal and the simplification it would engender on the Web application level would make the costs even less objectionable.
It's entirely possible that Project Velocity is being undertaken with exactly this thought in mind. (It's not clear that there's any movement afoot in MySQL AB towards this end—at least from my cursory searches.) This idea would have to be implemented at the RDBMS level.
Last week saw the introduction of the first Android phone, the T-Mobile G1. I've been following Android's progress with interest because it seems to be the most compelling competitor to Apple's iPhone so far.
This video by Engadget really helped me to understand the phone and operating system in a way that all of the specs and press releases have not. This particular video was better than most of the other ones I've come across because the phone's operator was quite familiar with its features.
Here are the things from the video that I really liked:
- That little drop-down panel notification that appears and disappears after a few seconds. It also appears to be able to be recalled at any time. It's especially handy for background processes and applications, neither of which are possible on the iPhone.
- The compass rose on the Google Maps application. This is a third-party integration, like a plugin or Greasemonkey script, that provides additional functionality not originally conceived by the app developers. This sort of customization is impossible on the iPhone and could be the basis for a much richer experience.
- The Street View responds to movement on all axes by changing the view accordingly. This is pretty sophisticated positional analysis. Like the compass rose, it appears that Android can tell the application not only the phone's coordinates but also its orientation on all axes. That's not available on the iPhone and could be very useful.
That being said, I believe that Android is doomed to failure. First, it has forsaken multitouch ubiquity. After the pioneering efforts of Jeff Han, Apple and Microsoft have clearly embraced multitouch as the user interface of the future. By not requiring hardware manufacturers to support multitouch (or touch at all, really), Google has seriously limited application developers. If a developer wants to do a multitouch application once Android supports that, he is either limited to a subset of the customer base or he has to make it degrade gracefully on phones that don't support multitouch—neither is an appealing option.
And openness has proven time and again to not be a huge selling point to the average consumer. There are already open mobile operating systems but people are clamoring for iPhones. There's a certain abstract benefit to openness that is hard to communicate to users. The freetards may whine but the average person just looks at the iPhone and drools. They don't particularly care that their phone isn't open. Why? Because most phones in the past never were.
I predict that Android will linger forever on cheaper phones where a free operating system could make for increased profits. The Big Three—Apple, Microsoft, and Nokia—will barely notice its share and Google will mostly abandon the project due to its corporate ADD.
This iPhone-related patent application just surfaced today. Combined with the rumor that Apple will unveil the iPhone App Store at the Worldwide Developer's Conference starting on Monday, it offers some tantalizing insights into what we might expect from the normally secretive company.
Here's two excerpts from the patent application:
The device supports a variety of applications, such as one or more of the following: a telephone application, a video conferencing application, an e-mail application, an instant messaging application, a blogging application, a photo management application, a digital camera application, a digital video camera application, a web browsing application, a digital music player application, and/or a digital video player application.
And also:
The wireless communication may use any of a plurality of communications standards, protocols and technologies, including but not limited to … voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Wi-MAX, … instant messaging (e.g., extensible messaging and presence protocol (XMPP), Session Initiation Protocol for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (SIMPLE), and/or Instant Messaging and Presence Service (IMPS)), and/or Short Message Service (SMS)), or any other suitable communication protocol, including communication protocols not yet developed as of the filing date of this document.
Video conferencing? IM? Blogging? Digital video camera? SIP/VoIP? XMPP? These are all technologies that aren't in the current iPhone. So the question here is whether this is a carte blanche, catch-all sort of patent application or a revelation of Apple's upcoming intentions.
I am very conflicted about this report. On the one hand, having these applications built by the mothership means that they'll be more widely used and available. For applications like instant messaging and video conferencing, ubiquity makes them useful. On the other hand, by including them for free Apple would short-circuit developers interested in selling such applications at a time when there are exactly zero sanctioned, third-party applications. This, of course, is nothing new for Apple.
It's within their rights to offer whatever software they want on whatever platform they create. But if they're looking to grow their third-party application catalog (and make money off the App Store), they'd do well to emulate the Facebook platform or even their own operating system. Competition with their constellation of developers has a chilling effect and should only be engaged in rarely.
[UPDATE (6/9/2008): Apple appears to not be competing with iPhone developers. From the keynote, it looks like they're just adding features to their existing stable of apps and leaving IM et al. to third parties. I think it's the right decision.]
Jim's comment on my screed about Netflix reminded me that I left an important requirement out. "All I know is that I want to be able to watch streaming video from the network sites on my television" doesn't fully capture what I'm looking for in the perfect Web-enabled TV assistant box.
I also need to rip every one of my DVDs to disk and be able to watch them on my television. Whereas I believe Jim's frustration stems from aesthetic or possibly browsing concerns, mine arises out of the total obliviousness to proper DVD handling and care that my three daughters exhibit. Every disc they touch is smudgy and scratched. If I could digitize the movies before they got to them, they could enjoy skip-free entertainment and I wouldn't have to repeatedly buy new copies. (I've only done that twice and I hated to do it.)
Being able to stream from another computer or server would adequately cover this need. I have no problem attaching an external hard drive to one of my Macs to accomplish this. I believe that existing devices already address this issue, but again they lack the Web-level streaming that I'd like.
I'm a big fan of Netflix. One of the few reasons why I even bothered with dual booting via Boot Camp was so that I could "Watch Now." So purchasing their new Netflix Player would seem like an easy decision. But it's not.
This player is really just the opening salvo for what promises to be a protracted battle. The price is compelling, but there's something missing. I can't decide if it's because it's too tied in to Netflix or that it's too limited in content—two sides of the same coin.
All I know is that I want to be able to watch streaming video from the network sites on my television. And I want to watch the Netflix instant video as well. At this point, the option that fits my requirements is the HTPC but I don't want the expense, unsightliness, and noise of a full-fledged computer in my living room. The Netflix Player and the AppleTV are the perfect size and form, but they're not powerful enough.
Unfortunately, I think I'm going to have to pass on the Netflix Player. Maybe version 2 will wow me.
Today I discovered that there's a new port of memcached for Windows! This one reflects memcached v1.2.4, which added a bunch of new features like multi-get, append/prepend, and check and set. This is a huge release even though it's in beta and is the first pass from the new maintainer. I am especially happy because I was considering putting in some time to do the port myself; I wasn't looking forward to it since I'd have to learn C++ and it'd take me awhile.
I also found the BeIT memcached client library, which purports to improve on Enyim. I haven't had a chance to try it out yet, but I like the embeddable, lightweight nature of its code. It supports a few commands that Enyim doesn't so I'm going to give it a try. Enyim had a couple quirks that we found and worked around so I'm always willing to find a more straightforward framework if possible. I don't understand the hashing issues enough to ascertain which is using the better-performing or more consistent algorithm so I don't have a preference on that front.
All in all, these were two very welcome developments. It's never been a better time to be a memcached fan in the .NET world!
Tonight I attended a lecture on "Algorithmic Architecture" by Kostas Terzidis at Taliesin West. Terzidis, a Harvard professor and former software engineer, is interested in the intersection of architecture and technology—mainly the role that computers play in automating much of the design aspects of architecture.
He spent much of his lecture philosophizing about this crossroads we find ourselves approaching. In contradictory fashion, he opined that there is nothing new, only recycled ideas and forgotten truths, while arguing that computers have enabled us to realize designs that were impossible just decades ago. That increase reliance on computer power has divorced us from the practice of architecture while bubbling over the inevitable supplanting of the creative process. Honestly, it wasn't terribly different from some of the incoherent rhapsodies of Frank Lloyd Wright.
The idea of automating the creative process intrigued me greatly though. At first, I was troubled by the mechanization of design. On the surface, it seems to obviate the individualistic architect, the creator of greatness. But upon pondering it more, I think that there's no reason why the stamp of the architect has to go away.
The future of architecture as programming is one where a program is written that takes all the variables and constraints of the architectural problem and devises thousands of buildings that solve it. Site topography, materials, budget, number of rooms, central plant, and so on are just inputs to be considered. While this seemingly diminishes the role of the architect, I think it could easily maintain his part.
Perhaps each programmer qua architect would codify his aesthetic sense in different ways or assign different weights to the various considerations. In so doing, the designs his program generates might look all of a same piece and his particular theme shines through. His job, then, becomes one of practiced selection of the best design combination.
It's going to be awhile before such a transformation of the trade takes place due to the massive increase in computing power necessary to effect it. But it seems inevitable and inexorable.
I went to Netflix just now to rate a movie I watched. On the front page, the image at right greeted me.
You may or may not know, but Netflix is offering a $1 million prize for a 10% improvement in its recommendation algorithm. I honestly don't know if the recommendation at right is what they're trying to improve but if it is then 10% better shouldn't be too difficult.
I mean, because I liked a documentary about capital punishment, a 80s puppet children's show, and my children liked an insipid phonics teaching program they think that I'd really dig a pseudo-martial arts exercise video. Sorry, but WTF?!
They just completed a big ol' upgrade but I think they missed a spot. Yeah, over there. See that recommendation engine-sized dark spot over there. There you go, you've found it.
Last May, I discussed my voice over IP experience. A lot has happened since then. Actually, a lot has happened in the last two weeks.
I finally activated my Packet8 account and promptly started the switch to Vonage. I can't believe how horrible Packet8 service was. First, you have to dial a 1 before every phone number but the caller ID doesn't automatically prepend that 1. That makes caller ID as an easy redial impossible. So you instead have to remember the area code plus phone number and then re-enter it in. Nowhere on Packet8's site does it say anything about that, but Vonage addresses that issue in its FAQ.
Second, there were times when you couldn't dial any phone number in particular area codes. We live in 480 and my in-laws live in 602. Occasionally, my wife would call her family and it would just ring and ring. No voice mail pick up at all. She didn't think anything of it until she tried number after number. A quick call on her cell phone revealed that the problem was indeed with Packet8. How the hell is that any kind of service!
All in all, Packet8 made us long for the days of AT&T CallVantage. Sure, you had to reset the telephone adapter almost on a daily basis and there was the occasional dropped call if you didn't answer call waiting fast enough, but at least you could *always* make calls. I had high hopes for Packet8 since they seemed more technical and hacker-friendly. But I really think that they don't deliver on that promise and their web site is a joke compared to AT&T's.
We've had Vonage for a little over a week now and I deeply regret ever having listened to the asshole that said I shouldn't switch to them in the first place. He definitely wasn't worth the respect I gave him at the time. It has been a joy: the web site is comprehensive and the development seems ongoing. We've had no problems with the service and it connected us to 911 perfectly when we needed that recently.
What?! Windows Vista is delayed again? This time past the invaluable Christmas buying spree? The hell you say! It just can't be because XP was released in October 2001 and no major operating system developer would go 5½ years between releases, would they?
I just spoke to my friend Mike Finkel last night and he told me that he's deeply involved with the ultramobile PC initiative at Intel. How cool is that!
Since I was granted VPN access at work, I decided that it was time to update my home Windows computer. Previously, I had an Intel Celeron processor running at 500 MHz, which seemed totally underpowered when my work computer has two 2.7 GHz Pentium 4 CPUs. So I went to the local PC Club franchise and spent about $500 to get a decent box running an AMD Athlon 2800+ running at 1.8 GHz. I think that that should be passable.
Installing the VPN software and all the necessary updates to Windows XP Pro led me to an observation. I think it is difficult to be an assiduous Windows user and still maintain the benevolent universe premise. After installing a spyware checker, a virus service, and 25 security updates, I was left with the feeling that the world is a dangerous place; one where identity theft and hard drive wiping are just one missed update away. The diligent users go to great lengths to keep their computers free of the bad guys; I've been regaled on more than one occasion with tales of the multiple layers of prophylactics that these people maintain. At the conclusion of these stories, they beam with a sense of "I've beat the ne'er-do-wells."
Naturally, there are millions of Windows users who don't install virus checkers, run firewalls, and the myriad other applications necessary to keep your Windows machine cruft-free (well, at least unexpected-cruft–free). Their boxes are likely the wonderful zombies that assist in DDOS attacks and the spread of worms. They're blissfully ignorant and probably just reinstall Windows periodically when their machines start to get slow. They don't know enough about computers in general or Windows in particular to feel a foreboding.
Whenever someone tells me about their sophisticated (and impenetrable until the next update) defenses, I chuckle internally and occasionally tell them about my simple defense: using Mac OS X. I don't have any virus, spyware, or adware checkers; I only have the firewall running because it's free and why not; and I have yet to hear about any sort of virus, worm, or trojan for the Mac OS X that wasn't a proof of concept that wasn't patched within days of announcement. There has never been a virus, worm, or trojan in the wild for Mac OS X. Compare that to the daily virus updates I have to download to stay ahead of the game, which updates are, by their very nature, behind the game.
By now, some among you are reflexively saying, "But that's because the Mac isn't worth a virus, worm, or trojan writers time due to its low market share." Besides the speciousness of that contention, so what? The implicit premise is that once the Mac gets Windows-like market share, it too will be besieged by the demons of malware. The thing that amuses me is that the people savvy enough to make the earlier statement would never concede that Mac OS X could ever break out of the market share ghetto. To them, the Mac is consigned to being a third-tier player forever. In other words, it would be terribly secure if they followed their line of thinking. Of course, they don't.
Even if the Mac did break into the double digits (or higher), it's not going to be overnight. That means that, at worst, you've got several years of virus-, worm-, and trojan-free living. Ahh, but that's benevolent universe premise thinking. The Internet, far from a glorious place, is in their minds a "wretched hive of scum and villainy." It makes me a little sad to think of how they don't know what they're missing. It has never been a better time to switch.
Bringing new meaning to the words "intel inside", Dell has apparently been installing hardware-based keyloggers for the Department of Homeland Security. DHS wouldn't respond to his FOIA requests, so we don't know the purpose, scope, or usage of the keylogger. If DHS didn't have anything to do with it (and Dell's furtive response suggests something sinister), then they would have stated as much instead of denying the request for exemption. Then again, this administration isn't known for its disclosure.
I can't fault Dell for this since they really wouldn't have had a choice—I'm sure any modern computer is going to have these things in them. I'm just glad that I have older-model laptops.
[UPDATE: It sounds completely plausible since I'm sure that the DHS (and all the other law enforcement agencies under its umbrella) would just love to have such a device out there and the current environment seems to trounce privacy in favor of security, but there's a part of me that's very skeptical about this story. First, he's
[UPDATE 2: The removed other versions were just more nicely formatted, had less pictures, and one version said that the FOIA response came in days while the other said weeks. Probably not a big deal. The site's owner may have removed the other versions because they were initial drafts.]
[UPDATE (6/17/05): Okay, it was a hoax. Good to know.]
[UPDATE 2 (6/17/05): Snopes clinches it. I checked there first before I posted this originally, but there was nothing about it. I also searched with Google.]
[UPDATE (6/19/05): More analysis of the hoax here.]
When I got DSL, I mentioned on this blog that I was probably going to get VoIP service from Vonage. I did end up getting VoIP service, but it wasn't from Vonage.
Everything I've read online and heard from people suggests that Vonage's recent marketing extravaganza outpaced capacity and that Vonage was suffering from some very real growing pains. Well, if I'm moving away from rock-solid landline service and I don't want to hear from my wife about how I made a big mistake, I'm not going to be part of any growing pains—especially not paying for the privilege.
I evaluated Packet8 and liked them in general, but something was a deal breaker and so I opted to move along. I'd relate what that oh-so-problematic something was, but I honestly can't remember. Nothing jumped out at me while scanning through the web site. I've heard lots of good things about Packet 8, so definitely include them in any VoIP research you might conduct.
I ended up settling on AT&T CallVantage. I read their site and reviewed the online reports only for the sake of thoroughness. The more I read, the more certain things kept cropping up: "stable," "feature-rich," "worthwhile." I took the plunge. It was a painful process getting my number switched over but that was totally Qwest's fault.
AT&T requested the switch and then later tried to reschedule the request. Qwest decided not to accept the change and never told AT&T. So AT&T didn't start my service just as Qwest ended theirs. Frantic phone calls ensued and Qwest eventually relented, temporarily re-establishing my phone service until AT&T could turn on VoIP. Once they did that, I called to Qwest to cancel my home phone. Qwest said no problem and for the next two days all was well.
Then Qwest decided that, in cancelling my home phone service, I actually wanted to cancel my DSL too. Of course. Why would I actually want to use Qwest for anything? When I pressed them on it, they conceded that I was in the right and that they would have DSL turned back on within a week. I balked. Okay, by tomorrow evening, which is the absolute earliest a serviceman could get there. Apparently something in my home wiring setup had changed in the last hour or so and it required a home visit to fix. Uh huh. In the end, they re-activated my DSL within the hour but not until I had spent an hour on the phone arguing that nothing technically could have changed in my DSL setup that they couldn't remotely re-establish.
The actual phone service has been pretty good. The voicemail took some getting used to and we can't rewire the house so that every phone jack uses the VoIP because we're using DSL for connectivity. We had some weird behavior when a second call came in over call waiting, but one call to tech support seems to have cleared that up.
My only problem with CallVantage is that it depends wholly on the broadband connection. And I think everyone knows that that's not 100%. But the good thing is that all calls automatically go to voice mail and are still logged in caller ID. Plus, you can have alternate numbers set up so that calls automatically get forwarded to, say, a cell phone.
Overall, I would wholeheartedly recommend CallVantage to anyone considering VoIP. If you can't roll with the punches of occasional outages, then I would suggest keeping the land line or switching to a cell phone as your home phone.
I recently had to buy a new cell phone since my previous one was provided by my employer. I shopped around for the plan and provider that best suited me—not an easy task since they all have similar, but not the same, features. I eventually decided on Sprint PCS because they had a plan that seemed reasonable, they seemed to consistently work with the latest technology, and their phone selection/pricing resonated.
I ended up choosing a Samsung i500, which is a hybrid Palm/cell phone. It's a flip and much more compact than a lot of the Treos. The clincher was the $100 price tag (after $150 instant savings and $50 service credit). I've already ditched my Hipster PDA; the only reason I ever used it was because I found myself unwilling to carry either my Palm III or my Palm Zire 21 with me at all times. By marrying my cell phone, which is similar to my wallet in its reluctance-to-leave-home-without-it quality, with my Palm, I've freed up a pocket. Sure, the stylus is tiny and the Graffiti area is small: I can live with that since I do most of my data entry through the Palm Desktop.
In my first week of experience with the phone, I can say that I would be hesitant to leave Sprint because it would mean giving up this phone.
[UPDATE (5/18/05): After extended use, I can safely say that this phone rocks! I've looked at the Treos and used a Blackberry and they're basically just PDAs with a microphone and speaker oriented for people's heads. The i500 is a phone with a PDA grafted into it. The separation of the screen from the Graffiti writing area is inspired: it allows for an elongated screen and only a marginally bigger keypad section. More screen is rarely a bad thing.]
I'm not a big fan of public transportation since it has limited endpoints and has plenty of incentives to be inefficient. Of course, it's also an illegitimate function of government but that objection will only fly once we as a society get a notion of the proper functions of government. I voted against the recent Maricopa County proposition to expand light rail as well as the original proposition that started it.
What makes the light rail expenditures more egregious isn't just that such systems have failed in nearly every municipality, it's also that there exist alternatives that are so much more efficient and cost-effective. SkyWeb Express is one such alternative and it costs a quarter of typical light rail. What's more, it's almost completely automated, private, and able to bypass stations. Oh, and it looks like a cross between a monorail and Rocket Rods.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much municipal interest in it.
Jonathan Rauch has a new article up in next month's The Atlantic Monthly on the subject of genetically-modified foods. If you're not familiar with the subject, Reason magazine has a special section devoted to the matter. If you're unwilling to click on that link and read the context, then I'll summarize it for you: science is brought to bear on crops in order to alleviate a host of biological maladies via genetic manipulation rather than the traditional means of human-guided plant husbandry.
Rauch argues that genetically-modified foods (GM foods hereafter), or Frankenfoods as they're called by their detractors, are actually a veritable blessing for humanity. He cites a number of examples of their beneficence and suggests that they might increase crop yields far in excess of what the Green Revolution achieved. He speculates that the yields possible using biotechnology would feed the world for the foreseeable future and help bring the Third World out of subsistence farming.
With all of the benefits, why is such an article necessary? The answer is fairly simple: environmentalists. Groups like the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace argue that the potential downside of its widespread use could create environmental devastation. They further believe that we should study the issue until we can be sure that the risk levels have asymptoted.
That sounds fine and dandy. After all, who wants unnecessary risk? It seems reasonable. Except that the risks are far overshadowed by the possibilities. If food could be made cheaper, safer, and more plentiful, why would anyone oppose that? Because it disrupts nature? Because it might affect other plants in unknown ways? Sounds fine to me. Why? Because I know that we can deal with the problems as they crop up; we can especially deal with them once we've developed our knowledge of genetic engineering and that comes with experience in using it.
The environmentalists who oppose genetic engineering tend to consistently take nature's side over man. While it's hard to believe of anyone, I think that environmentalists genuinely hate their fellow man. They deride technology, they deride the fantastic wealth-creating powers of the free market, they deride the freedom that let's individual and corporate initiative flourish. Life on earth is risky and we should undertake any effort to mitigate that risk. Our best bet is through technology and manipulation of our environment to create conditions more favorable to our existence.
The history of life in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is a testament to the phenomenal power of technology to better our lives (or worsen it in the case of war and totalitarianism). We live longer, live better, and live richer to the degree that we embrace technology and freedom. Anyone who denies it is woefully ignorant of the historical record or willfully blinded by their beliefs and biases.
[UPDATE: Glad tidings as Brazil lifts its ban on GM foods. Brazil has been one of the staunchest nations opposing biotechnology. Other good news is that the scientific community is conflicted over the matter.]
Awhile back, Steve Wozniak was said to have founded a new company—Wizards of Zeus—that was developing a product that would use GPS. No further details were released and the company went into what venture capitalists call "stealth mode" (though I've always thought "whisper mode" would be better, a quiet nod to one of the first geek movies, Blue Thunder). Well, that details embargo has been lifted. And in a big way with an article in the paper of record.
It's still too soon to tell how widespread this will be or how it's going to work beyond the technical aspects, but it sounds like a real winner. The feature that intrigued me the most was the ability to daisy-chain base stations so as to create a neighborhood-wide tracking zone. If the interface were right, I could picture a web server in every base station that could superimpose the things-to-be-tracked on to a map of the neighborhood with legends that differentiated among things. At a glance, you could see that you children are over at Jenny's house playing in the backyard. If the API is exposed so that people can create their own tracking applications, you could even create an alert that would immediately page you if your child got into a car on the street—perhaps indicated by lack of movement in the street area followed by rapid and consistent acceleration in a more or less straight line.
At any rate, if these devices could also track RFID-tagged items as well, then I could see an amazing synergy created that would also subvert any privacy objections to widespread rollout of RFID. You could immediately see what's in the refrigerator (or a smart refrigerator could list its contents on a display in the front), how many cans of corn are in the pantry, or whether it's time to buy more milk. Or you could tag valuables in an embedded way so that you could write a program (or purchase one) that alerted you whenever something wasn't there any more.
This new venture of Woz's looks very promising. I can't wait for next year when it's unveiled.
[UPDATE: Slashdot discussion ensues.]
[UPDATE 2: AppleLinks has a nice rant on the matter. Their objection to the WozNet is that it bespeaks a lack of trust and appeals to the control freaks. I guess that it could, but I can see this as a safety net for otherwise careful parents. Or as a neighborhood safety net.]
Apparently, DVDs aren't the permanent storage they're cracked up to be. This was a major reason why I've been switching from VHS tape to DVD. I had already experienced some severe VHS tape integrity problems and I liked DVDs digital quality/letterboxing format. Now, I'm not so sure.
Hopefully, this is just a manufacturing problem affecting only some movies and manufacturers and is not endemic to the format.
